OCR Text |
Show See Sunday, February 5, 2006 7 DAILY HERALD EDITORIALS DailysHeratd EDITORIAL BOARD Albert J/Manzi, President & Publisher Randy Wright, Executive Editor Donald W. Meyers, Editorial page editor Nancy Hale, Public adviser Thisbill is bad foryour health With knowledgeof real health risks, the state would stand by silently as you eat tainted food. When GRAMA wasfirst created 14 yearsago,it made all inspections mattersof public record. The people hadaccess to records created in the course of any That is, until someone noticed crizainal, civil or administrative hisSe They were yellow,like - entocosmmert process, with only a a lizard’s. few reasonable exceptions. The man had somehow conInspection records should be tracted hepatitis A, an infection kept public. Afterall, you're payortte liver that is spread through ing for them. matter. But if Madsen’sbill Heine five otek cases your ability to monitor governof ititis A came to light in mentinspectorswill be hobbled, Utah Valley. Five employees at whichitpu will reduce your one restaurant were freedom in any number an A canoes at —— of ways,including the a nearby establi nt right to makean inat it, oothen a Madsen’s formed dining choice. fourth out! a i ported.Eighteenpone bill is Sobaetonal contracted hepatitis A isaui out if inspectors are seeafter they ate salad premisguided ingproblems that git pared by onecatering because er pom's decirvice. ‘ sions about whereto eat, in January of this it protects even if the problem has year, 84 more cases problem not yet given rise to a werereported. a citation. If the only inforThe growing epibusinesses. mation publicly available .-AND_1_PAY STATE TAXES. + mactor atedinner at -a Utah Valley restaurant in October 2005. Shortly thereafter, he became ill, altering between chills eyavec Hethought he had demic described above The good is truein all respects but one. on La rty of cl ‘ing the scene ets Utah to get ones that a comply with involves punishments,it will be virtually impossible to identify patterns or to know whetherstate and local inspectors are onsectualytook the lawhave HereCveramex place recently in Los Angeles, though they no reason to fe bli inspectors will operate in ost total secrecy. re just as easily. But if SenateBill 77 is passed by the Utah Legislature, you H disclosure of inspection sl inspection information from the public, andits languageis too broad andvaguefor Sees oeeee Geaoeeeee in |, | { sources of the hepatitis outbreak and about the governmentinspectors who examined the restaurants. You would be barred from getting useful information to guide your restaurant choices, and you would not discover whetheririspectors had foundproblems repeatedly but had not imposed sanctions. Hepatitis A is no trifling matter. If you catchit, you stand a fair chanceoflosing your liver. Yet some in the Utah Legislature wantto amendthe state's public records law, known as GRAMA, in a way that would prevent people from finding out about the problem restaurants that might giveit to you. Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain,is the sponsorofS.B. 77. If this bill is approved, the ability of Utahns to monitor the behavior of their government andto exercise their prerogatives as citizens will be undert The light of truth will be dimmer; governmentwill be able to keep morethings away from the prying eyes of the public. UnderS.B. 77, records relating to inspections of businesses will be made secret — unless some formal sanction is imposed on the inspected party. In the California hepatitis case, no actions were taken; state government is still trying to piece together the mystery. But atleast the people of Los Angeles were given enough information to decide whether to eat at the restaurants in question. In Utah, underS.B. 77, you wouldn't get any information. crecy to “information relating to the finding of an inspectionofa business, sole proprietor, or individual.” That goes to a host of important governmentinspections — livestock, gas pumps, grocery store scales, air pollution sources, private clubs that servealcohol, elevators, irrigation ditches, funeral services,fire safety, day care centers,labor violations, nursing homes,school buses, restaurants and many more. Madsen’sbill is misguided, moreover, because it protects problem businesses. g ones that comply with the law haveno reason to fear public disclosureof inspection reports, while those that operate irresponsibly receive a special exception to public scrutiny. Onereason given in support ofthe bill is that inspectors are cureny writing reports that are misconstrued,andthis can hurt a businessunfairly.If true, that problem needs to be fixed. But punishing the citizens of Utah by closing down sources ofinformationis not the right solution. GRAMAshouldbe left alone. Whatjustifies such sro secrecy around inspections? Al solutely nothing. Private commercial interests should never trump the public interest. Other states haveno trouble keeping inspection records to the public. Whyshould thal? S.B. 77 should be rejected. Contact yourstate senators and representatives and let them know your views, You can find legislators online at www.le.utah.gov. MEDIA VOICES Overreacting to low-key theater From The Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb.2, 2006 eeoe received standing ov: tion at the US. Capitolbut another's was hauled away by ernie at President Bush's State of Sheehan's arrest Tuesday night Stood in stark contrast to the respect accorded most women known as Gold Star mothers — those who havelost a child in combat. Given Sheehan's son died in Iraq,she didn’t deservetreatment ast a 30 Teens past vi statinbeak toa rater’. Texas, raised the pressure to American troops home from Iraq? Sheehan's crime:She refused to cover up her T-shirt, which read "2,245 Dead. How Many More?” Since a Ri lawmaker's wife was tossed from the same event for rare been no worse than the’ eerieraped we ‘ats in the chamber. appears tay stiflers of free expres- sion. But why was either action needed? HERALD POLL Editor's note: The Daily Herald asked readersif the Legislature should be allowedto pick candidates for U.S. . The though, will likely boost her cause’ Herald poll Senate. Senate Bill 156, which would Recently we asked the follawing question at the Daily Herald Web site, have allowed the Legislature to pick www heraldextra com: candidates, has since been amended to remove that provision: Legislature would put cronies on ballot for U.S. Senate Peoplehaveright to choose whowillsit in Senate seats I believethatthis bill Sen. Stephenson putforth to have the Legislature pick US. Senate candidates is wrong.| think that the residents of Utah hevethe right to vote for these officials. If they col like someonethatis running, they vote against them.I don't like the idea of our Legislature taking this responsibility upon themselves when the 17th Amendment was clearly written so the pedple can vote for their senators. ) Scott Windhorst, Provo $3 million. We know ourstate representatives and havecontrolovertheir actions. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. We are a representa- tive governmentpreciselybecauseit takes mucheffort to become politically “Should the Utah Legistature pick the candidates who will run for U.S. Senate?" educated and most people won't take thetime. » Ursula Wayman, SaratogaSprings Yos 10% I really don’t think the Legislatureis qualified to pick candidates for the Senate because,particularlyin this state, they would putall their buddies in there and we would have one mess when we were done. » Edward Robinson, Orem How to comment E-mailletters to dhletters@heraldextra.com Fax to 344-2985, Mail to P.O. Box 717 Provo, UT 84603. Total votes: 206 Current poll: “Should a doctot s apology be admissible in court?” Polling is open at cur Web site until Thursday at 1145 p.m. SAT an a Legislators qualified to pick U.S. Senate candidates Good for Howard A. Stephenson and his Senate Bill 156. The 17th Amendment was a mistake,just consider the amount of moneyit takes to run for the Senate. Sen. Hatch figures he needs more than » Letters mustinclude the author's full name, address and daytime phone number. » Weprefer shorterletters. 100 and 200words.Letters maybe edited for length » Writers are encouraged to include their occupation and other personalinformation. » Because of the volumeofletters. we cannot acknowledge unpublishedletters. » Letters becomethe property of the Daily Herald CHARLES C. HAYNES UC, Christian hristi schools in warof paradigms na crowded andoftenhostile public square,all it takes is one lawsuit to open up an ugly new front in America’s culture wars. The latest example of world views clashing comes from California where a court battle put evangelical Christian schools on a collision course with public universities. And the outcomecould affect religious schools ofall stripes across the nation. In an unprecedented lawsuit, the Association of Christian Schools International and the Calvary ChapelChristian School of Murrieta, Calif., are accusing Se oreofCalifornia system of tion. ht began in the fall of 2004 whenighbn rejected new course free from Calvary as unacceptable ‘or meeting admissions requirementsto the 10 campuses in the university system.Atissue were biology and physicS textbooksfrom Christian publishers and several humanities courses. After negotiations between the Christian school and UC broke downlast year, ACSI and Calvary filed suit. In December,a fedjudge heard arguments on UC's moion to dismiss. A decision is expected soon about whether or not the suit will go forward, UC claims that these courses can’t be university's academic standards. ACSI argues that the courses and textbooksin question adequately cover the ee sabes matter — and were only rejected by UC because of their Christian view- point. Capeeen Ne Tr ILLEGALS. ae eer a discrimination? Readi oft textsin dispute,it's clear t at these courses are framed by a strong evangelical ive — as might be expected in a school with a religious mission. But" ‘ere the courses reject as ACSIalleges — Or-because they don't the knowledge “generally ac: cepted in the scientific and educational communities” as the university charges? Solely on academic grounds, the most problematic textbook may be the one used in biology. If UC can showthat the text presents inaccurate or misleading science, then the university may have a legitimate basis for not accepting the course.If, however, the textbook presents the core informationstudents need to knowaboutbiology, then the additionalreligious content should not disqualify the course. In other words,if the scienceitselfis sound,then the fact that the authors promise to“put the Word of God first and science second”should be irrelevantin the university's decision. Similarissues surround the physics book, It appears to have what you mightfind in any high school physics book — plus verses from the Bible at the beginning of each chapter. Here again, UC should only focus on whether or not the physics is accurate. The university's interest should begin and end with an examination of the foundational material that students need to learn in physics, How muchreligion is added on should not be the concernofthe state. Especially troubling to mearethe rejections ofliterature and history courses taught from a Christian perspective. For example, UC claims that “Christianity’s Influence on American History” was disallowed because the focuswa: narrow/too specialized.” Yet courses from other schools that soundjust as narrowor specialized (e.g., "Race, Class and Gender in Modern America”) have won approval. Of course, the University of California hasevery right to establish academic standardsfor admission and disapprove’ coursesfrom anyschool that don’t cover the core contentinscience, history, literature or other subjects, But under the establishmentclause of the First Amendment, nostate university should keep a course from the “approved list" because it includes religiousideasoris taught from a religious perspective Until we know all of the facts behind UC'sdecision-making, it's hard tosort out why some of these Calvary courses wererejected. But past approvalof courses with a viewpoint such as “Feminist Issues throughout U.S. History” lends credence to ACSI’s contention that the university is targeting textbooks and courses with an evangelical per- spective. If true (and that's what trials arefor), that would be a formof viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment This high-profile fight over courses taught in Christian schools has already sent a chilling messageto other religious schools. They worry thatif these courses canberejected, what's next? After all, most subjects in religious schools are taught fromafaith perspective — and maywell includereligious viewpoints: ofscience,literature orhistory that the university could deemnot “generally accepted”in the secularscientific and educational communities, Concerned aboutthis slippery slope, ACSIhopes to stop whatit character- izes “religious discrimination” against Calvarybefore the problemspreads to other schoolsand states, It’s true that alvaryremainsfree to teach these courses and students arefreeto take them. But the fact that the courses don't count as a college preparatory requirement for admission to UC puts Calvary students at adistinct disadvantage. At lot is at stake for both sides. If the university's decisiontoreject these courses is upheld, ACSI fearsthatreligious schools throughout the nationwill be pressured to makesurethat course offerings aren't “tooreligious”to qualify for considerationat public universities, But if ACSI prevails, UC worries about interference with the university's right toestablish academic standards for admission. Whatever the Californiajudgede- cides, this newculture-war conflict is unlikely to end soon, Unless some mutual understanding is reached, the peaceful coexistence that hashistorically marked relations betweenreligious schools and public universities may cometo a bitter end, For a nationinc ingly divided byreligion and ideology, that would be bad newsindeed. » Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the FreedomForum'sFirst Amendment Center, He can be reached at chaynes@freedomforum.org. |